Discussion:
Bloomberg Businessweek Article on "Data Hogs"
(too old to reply)
SMS
2011-04-12 16:11:51 UTC
Permalink
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>

I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
has caused, and the solution:

"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Justin
2011-04-12 16:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
News
2011-04-12 16:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Justin
2011-04-12 18:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
tycho
2011-04-12 18:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks-it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015-consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Maybe "yes," if it was the Foot-long, even though you did pay for it. :)
tycho
2011-04-12 18:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks-it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015-consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Maybe "yes," if it was the Foot-long, even though you did pay for it. :)
News
2011-04-12 18:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
Justin
2011-04-12 18:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
News
2011-04-12 18:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?

Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Justin
2011-04-12 18:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
your solution?

If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
downloading.
News
2011-04-12 18:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
your solution?
If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
downloading.
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Justin
2011-04-12 18:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
your solution?
If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
downloading.
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Irrelevant
News
2011-04-12 18:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
your solution?
If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
downloading.
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Irrelevant
Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Justin
2011-04-12 18:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
your solution?
If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
downloading.
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Irrelevant
Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
I don't use 4.99GB, but who are you to judge what is important and what isn't?
Is my work email more important than someone else's dog skateboarding video?

It's all because I can, because you know what, I CAN check facebook at the
grocery store. I can send and receive email at lunch.
News
2011-04-12 20:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
your solution?
If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
downloading.
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Irrelevant
Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
I don't use 4.99GB, but who are you to judge what is important and what isn't?
Is my work email more important than someone else's dog skateboarding video?
It's all because I can, because you know what, I CAN check facebook at the
grocery store. I can send and receive email at lunch.
Go for it. Waste some more. Degrade others' online experience.

You're probably one of those whose time is so valuable you drive in the
breakdown lane, run "pink-ish" lights, talk on your cell phone while
driving, and refuse to shut off your electronic devices when the
aircraft door is closed, as and when commanded.

Carry on, oh self-important one!
Justin
2011-04-12 23:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource. Am I limited to only two
glasses of water a one shower per day? What if I have the runs and need to
flush the toilet 18 times that day? Do I get charged extra?
And congesting a network with your wretched excessive downloading isn't?
Ever the apologist, eh skippy?
Perhaps I should just pay my fee and not use it at all then? Is that
your solution?
If my cap is 5GB and I used 4.99 GB then by definition there is no excessive
downloading.
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Irrelevant
Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
I don't use 4.99GB, but who are you to judge what is important and what isn't?
Is my work email more important than someone else's dog skateboarding video?
It's all because I can, because you know what, I CAN check facebook at the
grocery store. I can send and receive email at lunch.
Go for it. Waste some more. Degrade others' online experience.
So what makes data worth using bandwidth oh self imposed judge?
Post by News
You're probably one of those whose time is so valuable you drive in the
breakdown lane, run "pink-ish" lights, talk on your cell phone while
driving, and refuse to shut off your electronic devices when the
aircraft door is closed, as and when commanded.
That's funny, all of those have laws against them
Richard B. Gilbert
2011-04-12 21:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
<snip>
Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
How about taking this "discussion" to e-mail. It's not terribly
interesting to most of us!
News
2011-04-12 21:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
<snip>
Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
How about taking this "discussion" to e-mail. It's not terribly
interesting to most of us!
Sorry for using up your 5G...
Justin
2011-04-12 23:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
<snip>
Unresponsive. Just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
How about taking this "discussion" to e-mail. It's not terribly
interesting to most of us!
Nah, I wouldn't want to know his email address
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 04:11:15 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@speakeasy.net>, News
says...
Post by News
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Unless your contract specifies that you are only allowed to download
certain types of contract, it doesn't matter.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
News
2011-04-13 10:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
says...
Post by News
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Unless your contract specifies that you are only allowed to download
certain types of contract, it doesn't matter.
Be sure to leave the lights, water and TV on in your hotel room when you
leave.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 16:39:31 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@speakeasy.net>, News
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by News
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Unless your contract specifies that you are only allowed to download
certain types of contract, it doesn't matter.
Be sure to leave the lights, water and TV on in your hotel room when you
leave.
Nice try, idiot troll. Once I'm done with the room, I'm not paying for
it anymore, am I?
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
News
2011-04-13 16:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by News
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Unless your contract specifies that you are only allowed to download
certain types of contract, it doesn't matter.
Be sure to leave the lights, water and TV on in your hotel room when
you
Post by News
leave.
Nice try, idiot troll. Once I'm done with the room, I'm not paying for
it anymore, am I?
You had better have left if you pull that stunt, @sshole.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 18:13:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@speakeasy.net>, News
says...
Post by Steve Sobol
Nice try, idiot troll. Once I'm done with the room, I'm not paying for
it anymore, am I?
Umm... Duh? If I've checked out, that means I left, correct?

If by "leave" you didn't mean "check out", WTF did you mean?

If I'm *temporarily* leaving (i.e. not checking out), I turn lights out.
I only leave water running in the sink/shower/etc. when I'm actually
using it.

Regardless, your analogy fails because I've not seen a hotel contract
that specifies anything about the use of utilities in the room. Check it
out next time -- usually, the terms of your stay are posted on a
document attached to the inside of the door of your room.

We're talking about a situation where the service provider specifically
states that you are allowed to do X. You and certain other people are
claiming that doing X makes us evil people who are screwing up the
network for other customers. I love the use of AT&T as an example...
AT&T, as mentioned upthread, has serious problems managing network
capcity on its wireless network. My friend in the West Los Angeles area
can't even hold a call on the AT&T network, at her apartment. The minute
she gets home, she expects that the call will drop; she even warns me
when she's about to pull into her garage, and sure enough, EVERY time
that happens, the call drops and she ends up having to call me back
later.

That's not the customer's fault, although I would not be surprised if
AT&T blames its customers.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
News
2011-04-13 18:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
says...
Post by Steve Sobol
Nice try, idiot troll. Once I'm done with the room, I'm not paying for
it anymore, am I?
Umm... Duh? If I've checked out, that means I left, correct?
If by "leave" you didn't mean "check out", WTF did you mean?
Keep struggling. Even you might get it.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-14 03:19:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@speakeasy.net>, News
says...
Post by News
Keep struggling. Even you might get it.
How unsurprising. You completely ignored the rest of my post, which
explains why your analogy doesn't work. Idiot troll.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
nospam
2011-04-13 23:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by Steve Sobol
Nice try, idiot troll. Once I'm done with the room, I'm not paying for
it anymore, am I?
Umm... Duh? If I've checked out, that means I left, correct?
If by "leave" you didn't mean "check out", WTF did you mean?
If I'm *temporarily* leaving (i.e. not checking out), I turn lights out.
I only leave water running in the sink/shower/etc. when I'm actually
using it.
why? you're entitled to unlimited water and electricity.
Post by Steve Sobol
Regardless, your analogy fails because I've not seen a hotel contract
that specifies anything about the use of utilities in the room. Check it
out next time -- usually, the terms of your stay are posted on a
document attached to the inside of the door of your room.
most hotels in which i've stayed have a card on the door (or somewhere
obvious in the room) that says please turn off the lights when not in
the room to conserve.

often, after housekeeping has been in the room, i've noticed the heat
or air conditioning has been turned off (or down), also to save power.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-14 03:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Steve Sobol
Regardless, your analogy fails because I've not seen a hotel contract
that specifies anything about the use of utilities in the room. Check it
out next time -- usually, the terms of your stay are posted on a
document attached to the inside of the door of your room.
most hotels in which i've stayed have a card on the door (or somewhere
obvious in the room) that says please turn off the lights when not in
the room to conserve.
Which is not the same thing as saying "this is a rule that you must
follow" - the terms and conditions that apply to your hotel stay are
terms and conditions that you *must* follow or risk getting kicked out
of the room.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
News
2011-04-14 10:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by nospam
Post by Steve Sobol
Regardless, your analogy fails because I've not seen a hotel contract
that specifies anything about the use of utilities in the room. Check it
out next time -- usually, the terms of your stay are posted on a
document attached to the inside of the door of your room.
most hotels in which i've stayed have a card on the door (or somewhere
obvious in the room) that says please turn off the lights when not in
the room to conserve.
Which is not the same thing as saying "this is a rule that you must
follow" - the terms and conditions that apply to your hotel stay are
terms and conditions that you *must* follow or risk getting kicked out
of the room.
Behave like that and see if you're welcome back, wasteful moron.
Todd Allcock
2011-04-14 15:41:48 UTC
Permalink
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by nospam
Post by Steve Sobol
Regardless, your analogy fails because I've not seen a hotel contract
that specifies anything about the use of utilities in the room. Check it
out next time -- usually, the terms of your stay are posted on a
document attached to the inside of the door of your room.
most hotels in which i've stayed have a card on the door (or somewhere
obvious in the room) that says please turn off the lights when not in
the room to conserve.
Which is not the same thing as saying "this is a rule that you must
follow" - the terms and conditions that apply to your hotel stay are
terms and conditions that you *must* follow or risk getting
kicked out
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
of the room.
Behave like that and see if you're welcome back, wasteful moron.
You're really beating this flawed analogy into the ground, News. If
the cell tower I'm connected to is under capacity, what exactly am I
"wasting" by accessing it? If networks used any type of intelligent
prioritizing of use, like voice before data, "new" data connections
before old, throttling after so many MB downloaded in a session, etc.
There'd be very few issues except at peak times.

Again, folks using 2-5GB aren't the problem. The few guys using many
times that by gaming the system (using undetectable tethering,
sneaking data cards on smart or dumbphone plans,etc.) are the
problem.

Until carriers reward customers with incentives to conserve data,
customers will use what they're allotted, and rightfully so.
Obviously AT&T doesn't think 2GB is that much usage, since they only
charge $10 more for it ($25) than they charge for 200MB ($15). If
conservation is so critical, why the tiny price difference? Charge $5
for 200MB and you'll start seeing conservation!
SMS
2011-04-14 16:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Until carriers reward customers with incentives to conserve data,
customers will use what they're allotted, and rightfully so. Obviously
AT&T doesn't think 2GB is that much usage, since they only charge $10
more for it ($25) than they charge for 200MB ($15). If conservation is
so critical, why the tiny price difference? Charge $5 for 200MB and
you'll start seeing conservation!
They're more likely to charge $50 for 2GB than $5 for 200MB.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-14 18:41:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.eternal-september.org>,
Todd Allcock says...
Post by Todd Allcock
You're really beating this flawed analogy into the ground, News. If
the cell tower I'm connected to is under capacity, what exactly am I
"wasting" by accessing it? If networks used any type of intelligent
prioritizing of use, like voice before data, "new" data connections
before old, throttling after so many MB downloaded in a session, etc.
There'd be very few issues except at peak times.
This is a logical, valid point, which is why you shouldn't expect Idiot
Trollboi to ever respond to it.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
News
2011-04-14 18:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
Todd Allcock says...
Post by Todd Allcock
You're really beating this flawed analogy into the ground, News. If
the cell tower I'm connected to is under capacity, what exactly am I
"wasting" by accessing it? If networks used any type of intelligent
prioritizing of use, like voice before data, "new" data connections
before old, throttling after so many MB downloaded in a session, etc.
There'd be very few issues except at peak times.
This is a logical, valid point
If limited to that condition.

In point of fact, most subs want to use the system with priority at peak
times, which is what makes congestion at peak times, @***@t.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-14 18:54:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <_s-***@speakeasy.net>, News
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Todd Allcock says...
Post by Todd Allcock
You're really beating this flawed analogy into the ground, News. If
the cell tower I'm connected to is under capacity, what exactly am I
"wasting" by accessing it? If networks used any type of intelligent
prioritizing of use, like voice before data, "new" data connections
before old, throttling after so many MB downloaded in a session, etc.
There'd be very few issues except at peak times.
This is a logical, valid point
If limited to that condition.
In point of fact, most subs want to use the system with priority at peak
Let me know when you decide to actually contribute something useful to
the discussion. I'm not the only one telling you your analogy won't
work. I'm not the only one telling you that people aren't data hogs
simply because they are using their devices in 100% compliance with
their providers' terms of service.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
News
2011-04-14 19:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Todd Allcock says...
Post by Todd Allcock
You're really beating this flawed analogy into the ground, News. If
the cell tower I'm connected to is under capacity, what exactly am I
"wasting" by accessing it? If networks used any type of intelligent
prioritizing of use, like voice before data, "new" data connections
before old, throttling after so many MB downloaded in a session, etc.
There'd be very few issues except at peak times.
This is a logical, valid point
If limited to that condition.
In point of fact, most subs want to use the system with priority at peak
Let me know when you decide to actually contribute something useful to
the discussion. I'm not the only one telling you your analogy won't
work. I'm not the only one telling you that people aren't data hogs
simply because they are using their devices in 100% compliance with
their providers' terms of service.
How's that working for y'all?

In point of fact, most subs want to use the system with priority at peak
times, which is what makes congestion at peak times, @***@ts.
Justin
2011-04-14 20:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Todd Allcock says...
Post by Todd Allcock
You're really beating this flawed analogy into the ground, News. If
the cell tower I'm connected to is under capacity, what exactly am I
"wasting" by accessing it? If networks used any type of intelligent
prioritizing of use, like voice before data, "new" data connections
before old, throttling after so many MB downloaded in a session, etc.
There'd be very few issues except at peak times.
This is a logical, valid point
If limited to that condition.
In point of fact, most subs want to use the system with priority at peak
Let me know when you decide to actually contribute something useful to
the discussion. I'm not the only one telling you your analogy won't
work. I'm not the only one telling you that people aren't data hogs
simply because they are using their devices in 100% compliance with
their providers' terms of service.
How's that working for y'all?
In point of fact, most subs want to use the system with priority at peak
waaaaaa. They want to use a service they paid for when they want to use it.
How terrible
Steve Sobol
2011-04-14 22:11:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <8sCdnZ5Pl-***@speakeasy.net>, News
says...
Post by News
In point of fact, most subs want to use the system with priority at peak
*pat on the head*

Yes. And it's obviously the customer's fault if the cellular carrier
doesn't provide enough network capacity to handle the congestion.

You must work for a carrier.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
SMS
2011-04-13 17:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by News
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Unless your contract specifies that you are only allowed to download
certain types of contract, it doesn't matter.
Be sure to leave the lights, water and TV on in your hotel room when
you
Post by News
leave.
Nice try, idiot troll. Once I'm done with the room, I'm not paying for
it anymore, am I?
I think he's referring to stepping out of your hotel room during your stay.

In any case, it's a terrible analogy, as analogies usually are. I think
the closest analogy is to that of unlimited landline phone service. It's
unmetered, but not really unlimited.

My web hosting company has this statement regarding bandwidth:

Though we do not have any pre-set limits, you will receive warnings if
your site begins to use over 25 GB of bandwidth/month. If you use more
than this occasionally that is fine. There is never an extra fee for
bandwidth overages.
Justin
2011-04-13 18:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Steve Sobol
says...
Post by News
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by News
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
Unless your contract specifies that you are only allowed to download
certain types of contract, it doesn't matter.
Be sure to leave the lights, water and TV on in your hotel room when
you
Post by News
leave.
Nice try, idiot troll. Once I'm done with the room, I'm not paying for
it anymore, am I?
I think he's referring to stepping out of your hotel room during your stay.
In any case, it's a terrible analogy, as analogies usually are. I think
the closest analogy is to that of unlimited landline phone service. It's
unmetered, but not really unlimited.
Though we do not have any pre-set limits, you will receive warnings if
your site begins to use over 25 GB of bandwidth/month. If you use more
than this occasionally that is fine. There is never an extra fee for
bandwidth overages.
Web hosting isn't quite the same as ISP service. The more bandwidth you consume
on a web host odds are the more resources you are using on the host and in
the data center. Log files, cpu usage, memory usage, etc.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 18:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Web hosting isn't quite the same as ISP service. The more bandwidth you consume
on a web host odds are the more resources you are using on the host and in
the data center. Log files, cpu usage, memory usage, etc.
That's true of ISP service also, but it is irrelevant. What *is*
relevant, to this particular discussion, is what the service providers
contract and/or Terms of Service say you can do. Following the rules
doesn't make you a hog. It doesn't mean you're doing something you
shouldn't; for $DEITY'S sake, you are *following the rules.*
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 04:11:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@speakeasy.net>, News
says...
Post by News
Sure, skippy. And just how much of the 4.99G was "because I can"?
whoops, I meant certain types of CONTENT.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
nospam
2011-04-12 20:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource.
cellular bandwidth is a *lot* more limited than water in a hotel.
Justin
2011-04-12 23:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Justin
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource.
cellular bandwidth is a *lot* more limited than water in a hotel.
That's funny, there are thousands more smartphone users each week that
use cell data, where are the people complaining that bandwidth is drying up?
nospam
2011-04-13 05:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by nospam
Post by Justin
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource.
cellular bandwidth is a *lot* more limited than water in a hotel.
That's funny, there are thousands more smartphone users each week that
use cell data, where are the people complaining that bandwidth is drying up?
oh, they're out there. ask anyone who uses at&t in san francisco and
new york about how overloaded it is. ask people at sxsw a couple of
years ago when at&t had a meltdown there too. try using a cellphone at
a conference, or at a major hotel when said conference is going on, and
it's often very flaky.

there's enough capacity for average usage patterns. there is not enough
capacity if every user is going to demand their full 5 gigabytes every
month.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 04:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
oh, they're out there. ask anyone who uses at&t in san francisco and
new york about how overloaded it is
...which is AT&T's fault. They've been in the game long enough that they
should have the knowhow and the tools to properly calculate their
bandwidth needs.
Post by nospam
there's enough capacity for average usage patterns. there is not enough
capacity if every user is going to demand their full 5 gigabytes every
month.
but if they have the contractual right to do so, they aren't at fault
for network problems. period.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
Justin
2011-04-13 05:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Justin
Post by nospam
Post by Justin
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource.
cellular bandwidth is a *lot* more limited than water in a hotel.
That's funny, there are thousands more smartphone users each week that
use cell data, where are the people complaining that bandwidth is drying up?
oh, they're out there. ask anyone who uses at&t in san francisco and
new york about how overloaded it is. ask people at sxsw a couple of
Overloaded or poorly architected. We all know about the problems
that AT&T encounters all the time. Their network sucks in those areas
and they are unable or unwilling to fix it. However, Verizon and T-Mobile
seems to never have a problem in these areas
Post by nospam
years ago when at&t had a meltdown there too. try using a cellphone at
a conference, or at a major hotel when said conference is going on, and
it's often very flaky.
Huh, all the reports I read of this years CES said that Verizon and Sprint
users had no problems.
Post by nospam
there's enough capacity for average usage patterns. there is not enough
capacity if every user is going to demand their full 5 gigabytes every
month.
167MB isn't all that much.
SMS
2011-04-13 05:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
there's enough capacity for average usage patterns. there is not enough
capacity if every user is going to demand their full 5 gigabytes every
month.
True. It's a shared resource. It's identical to landline "unlimited"
versus "metered" service. Every landline user could not be using their
line 24/7, the system isn't designed to support that usage model. When
too many people are using the system you will have to wait for a dial
tone, or you'll get an "all circuits are busy" message. It doesn't
matter that you paid for "unlimited" you get what you get, and it may
not be allocated in the fairest way.
George
2011-04-13 13:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Justin
Post by nospam
Post by Justin
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
No, because that is an actual limited resource.
cellular bandwidth is a *lot* more limited than water in a hotel.
That's funny, there are thousands more smartphone users each week that
use cell data, where are the people complaining that bandwidth is drying up?
oh, they're out there. ask anyone who uses at&t in san francisco and
new york about how overloaded it is. ask people at sxsw a couple of
years ago when at&t had a meltdown there too. try using a cellphone at
a conference, or at a major hotel when said conference is going on, and
it's often very flaky.
Not sure of your point? AT&T has a Mickey Mouse network that isn't
capable of handling the customer load they added. Isn't the primary
reason they want to buy tmobile to gain extra bandwidth? AT&T blew it.
Post by nospam
there's enough capacity for average usage patterns. there is not enough
capacity if every user is going to demand their full 5 gigabytes every
month.
My smartphone works just fine on VZWs network who seemed to have done a
much better job of planning.
Paul Miner
2011-04-12 18:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
Bad analogy. Try again.
--
Paul Miner
News
2011-04-12 18:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Miner
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
Bad analogy. Try again.
Why not give it a try yourself. Make sure to be the apologist.
Paul Miner
2011-04-12 18:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Paul Miner
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
Bad analogy. Try again.
Why not give it a try yourself. Make sure to be the apologist.
Nope, not my job. I was just pointing out a mistake. Carry on.
--
Paul Miner
News
2011-04-12 19:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Miner
Post by News
Post by Paul Miner
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
Bad analogy. Try again.
Why not give it a try yourself. Make sure to be the apologist.
Nope, not my job. I was just pointing out a mistake. Carry on.
Your "job" is apparently throw-away critique without basis.

Carry on, fool, you're acing it.
SMS
2011-04-12 20:14:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
That's really not a good analogy. Few hotel guests would intentionally
leave the water running for no valid reason, but there are lots of ways
to use massive amounts of 3G/4G data that are entirely reasonable.

The carriers that offer unlimited data have attempted to redefine the
meaning of "unlimited" because they are terrified of actually doing data
tiers.

If an AT&T unlimited customer reads AT&T's web site which states 65% of
customers use less that 200MB of data a month, they might go back and
look at their data usage over the past few months and determine that
maybe they should be giving AT&T $180 less per year.

Ultimately analysts believe that all carriers will have to go to tiered
data plans because the unlimited plans cause some users to feel that
they have both a right and an obligation to use as much data as humanly
possible.
News
2011-04-12 20:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
That's really not a good analogy. Few hotel guests would intentionally
leave the water running for no valid reason
Although in the OP's case...
Justin
2011-04-12 23:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by SMS
Post by News
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for it"?
That's really not a good analogy. Few hotel guests would intentionally
leave the water running for no valid reason
Although in the OP's case...
Yes, because I advocate waste.... wtf, you're a moron
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 04:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Ultimately analysts believe that all carriers will have to go to tiered
data plans because the unlimited plans cause some users to feel that
they have both a right and an obligation to use as much data as humanly
possible.
Obligation, no, but I'm damned well allowed to use 5GB/month if my
contract allows it. I don't typically get anywhere near 5GB/month
because I use my smartphone on wifi whenever possible, but...
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
Justin
2011-04-12 18:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
News
2011-04-12 18:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by News
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
So STFU pig out, eh?
Not exactly, but calling someone a data hog for using what they are
paying for is BS. If they go over the cap fine, but do you get called
a sandwich hog for eating a whole 6" subway sandwich you paid for?
Do you leave the water running in your hotel room "because you paid for
it"?
SMS
2011-04-12 20:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
That's true. And when you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, if you
leave while the restaurant still has food left, you're leaving money on
the table too.
News
2011-04-12 20:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Justin
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
That's true. And when you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, if you
leave while the restaurant still has food left, you're leaving money on
the table too.
No doubt the OP would see it that way.
Justin
2011-04-12 23:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Justin
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
That's true. And when you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, if you
leave while the restaurant still has food left, you're leaving money on
the table too.
Yep, it's called a tip.
Paul Miner
2011-04-13 00:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Justin
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
That's true. And when you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, if you
leave while the restaurant still has food left, you're leaving money on
the table too.
Apparently analogies are harder than I thought. A 5GB data plan
obviously isn't analogous to an all-you-can-eat buffet.
--
Paul Miner
SMS
2011-04-13 01:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Miner
Apparently analogies are harder than I thought. A 5GB data plan
obviously isn't analogous to an all-you-can-eat buffet.
The T-Mobile plan ia analogous to one Asian seafood buffet I've been to.
It's all-you-can-eat, but you only get one lobster ticket. You can have
as much of anything else as you want. Another one I went to had a two
hour time limit. These places are a waste for me as I don't eat
shellfish, but my wife's family likes them so I go. Many of these
restaurants make the same mistake as cellular providers by offering too
much higher quality food for too low of a price. Then they either lower
quality or raise the price, and everyone stops going and they close.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 04:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Paul Miner
Apparently analogies are harder than I thought. A 5GB data plan
obviously isn't analogous to an all-you-can-eat buffet.
The T-Mobile plan ia analogous to one Asian seafood buffet I've been to.
It's all-you-can-eat, but you only get one lobster ticket.
So? In that case, the rules are, I assume, spelled out. And as long as
they are, I have no standing to complain if I eat there and the lobster
isn't "all you can eat."

And, no, the T-Mobile plan isn't analogous.

Speaking as a T-Mo customer with a smartphone and a data plan.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
Todd Allcock
2011-04-14 04:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Miner
Post by SMS
Post by Justin
Calling anyone on unlimited or who stays under whatever cap they
may have a data hog is specious. If I pay for 5GB of data on my cell
phone, any time I use less than that 5GB in a month I am leaving money
on the table.
That's true. And when you go to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, if you
leave while the restaurant still has food left, you're leaving money on
the table too.
Apparently analogies are harder than I thought. A 5GB data plan
obviously isn't analogous to an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Particularly since unused bandwidth can't bestored and resold tomorrow
like the leftover mac-n-cheese on the buffet.

That's the real problem with mobile data. At three o'clock in the
morning when I'm barreling down some deserted stretch of highway, my
carrier couldn't care less if I stream Pandora or Netflix the whole way.
It's during business hours when the same behavior might interfere with
the corporate users paying top dollar that I might be a liability. With
packet data, we all still get to connect, but excessive use slows
everyone's throughput.
SMS
2011-04-14 14:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
That's the real problem with mobile data. At three o'clock in the
morning when I'm barreling down some deserted stretch of highway, my
carrier couldn't care less if I stream Pandora or Netflix the whole way.
It's during business hours when the same behavior might interfere with
the corporate users paying top dollar that I might be a liability. With
packet data, we all still get to connect, but excessive use slows
everyone's throughput.
Yet they've never been interested in following the peak/off-peak pricing
model that they use for voice.

AT&T's approach of providing more and more hotspots, while offering
tiers of data service, is likely to be copied by all the other carriers
(at least the tiered data service). When you access to wi-fi at
Airports, Bakeries, Barber Shops, Bars, Campgrounds, Car Repair Shops,
Car Dealers, Car Washes, Coffee Houses, Colleges, Copy Centers, Donut
Shops, Freeway Rest Areas, Government Buildings, Hospitals, Medical
Centers, Hotels, Laundromats, Libraries, Parks, Restaurants, Shopping
Malls, Friend’s Homes, etc., and use mobile data only when there's no
other source available, your mobile data needs are greatly reduced.
Justin
2011-04-14 15:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Todd Allcock
That's the real problem with mobile data. At three o'clock in the
morning when I'm barreling down some deserted stretch of highway, my
carrier couldn't care less if I stream Pandora or Netflix the whole way.
It's during business hours when the same behavior might interfere with
the corporate users paying top dollar that I might be a liability. With
packet data, we all still get to connect, but excessive use slows
everyone's throughput.
Yet they've never been interested in following the peak/off-peak pricing
model that they use for voice.
AT&T's approach of providing more and more hotspots, while offering
tiers of data service, is likely to be copied by all the other carriers
(at least the tiered data service). When you access to wi-fi at
Airports, Bakeries, Barber Shops, Bars, Campgrounds, Car Repair Shops,
Car Dealers, Car Washes, Coffee Houses, Colleges, Copy Centers, Donut
Shops, Freeway Rest Areas, Government Buildings, Hospitals, Medical
Centers, Hotels, Laundromats, Libraries, Parks, Restaurants, Shopping
Malls, Friend’s Homes, etc., and use mobile data only when there's no
other source available, your mobile data needs are greatly reduced.
Yet streaming pandora while driving down the road is not covered
by any of your fictional ubiquitous wifi

BTW, I would not allow friends on my wifi, I come close to the cap
every month as it is.
SMS
2011-04-14 16:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Yet streaming pandora while driving down the road is not covered
by any of your fictional ubiquitous wifi
You're correct, at least about the Pandora part. Pandora has admitted
that their whole business model is dependent on unlimited or very low
cost data, and data tiers appear to already having an effect on their
revenue. Hulu is going to have the same problem.

I think that by now you're well aware that wi-fi is extremely
ubiquitous, but you just can't let it go and admit your mistake.
Post by Justin
BTW, I would not allow friends on my wifi, I come close to the cap
every month as it is.
Yes, the caps that AT&T is placing on DSL are problematic for those that
are streaming a lot of high-resolution video. Which is of course the
whole idea. AT&T wants you on U-Verse, Comcast wants you on cable.
Neither want you streaming video from Hulu or Netflix in lieu of paying
them $40-$120 per month for TV service or purchasing pay-per-view movies.
Justin
2011-04-14 17:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Justin
Yet streaming pandora while driving down the road is not covered
by any of your fictional ubiquitous wifi
You're correct, at least about the Pandora part. Pandora has admitted
that their whole business model is dependent on unlimited or very low
cost data, and data tiers appear to already having an effect on their
revenue. Hulu is going to have the same problem.
I think that by now you're well aware that wi-fi is extremely
ubiquitous, but you just can't let it go and admit your mistake.
No, it's not. I've repeatedly debunked your myth with facts
And I am in the office right now and can't pick up a single wifi
signal. So how ubiquitous is it?


Most places I spend time aside from starbucks for 5 minutes every so often
and my house have zero free wifi
SMS
2011-04-14 17:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
No, it's not. I've repeatedly debunked your myth with facts
Sorry, you have not provided any facts to disprove anything.

Here's another article that may help you expand your knowledge:

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382281,00.asp>

"_Years after Wi-Fi connections have become ubiquitous_ on university
campuses, in coffee shops, and in public buildings, the ability to
connect to the Internet during a morning commute is still an exercise in
frustration for many Americans.

Yesterday the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in New York
City said it was moving forward with a pilot program to bring Wi-Fi to
customers in select subway stations. While promising, the initial
rollout includes only a few stations, and _it's coming years after Wi-Fi
has become commonplace._"

If indeed Wi-Fi is not widely available where you live, then your area
is the exception rather than the rule.
Justin
2011-04-14 17:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Justin
No, it's not. I've repeatedly debunked your myth with facts
Sorry, you have not provided any facts to disprove anything.
So, listing every place that HAS wifi in my sphere of travel in a week
and that list being a handful of places at most... yeah
Post by SMS
If indeed Wi-Fi is not widely available where you live, then your area
is the exception rather than the rule.
That's funny! Many others have also disagreed with your mythical wifi
world.

Wifi isn't even available in the subways of new york, the busiest subway system
in the USA and you claim it's widely available everywhere?

Do I need to paste the definition of ubiquitous for you?
SMS
2011-04-14 18:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Wifi isn't even available in the subways of new york, the busiest subway system
in the USA and you claim it's widely available everywhere?
LOL, nor is cell phone service, except for a few select stations on two
carriers. Subways have always been problematic for cellular carriers.
There's no good revenue model for cell phone service in the NYC subway.
It's too noisy, the rides are too short, and it's difficult to install
in long narrow tunnels, though not in stations.

"Pretty soon, it seems, a goodly portion of NYC will be Wi-Fi ready;
AT&T outfitted Times Square with free wireless two months ago and
ubiquitous coffee chain Starbucks offers pro bono access as well. Just
think, that whole “I was stuck in a tunnel” excuse is never going to be
the same…"
Steve Sobol
2011-04-14 18:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
If indeed Wi-Fi is not widely available where you live, then your area
is the exception rather than the rule.
Go do a comprehensive study, and *then* come back and make that
assertion.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
SMS
2011-04-14 23:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by SMS
If indeed Wi-Fi is not widely available where you live, then your area
is the exception rather than the rule.
Go do a comprehensive study, and *then* come back and make that
assertion.
It's already been done. Well it's never "done" per-se. It's a continuing
work in progress to enumerate all the wi-fi sites.

Here's where you can start your learning:

Airports: <http://www.wififreespot.com/airport.html>

Hotels/Motels: <http://www.wififreespot.com/hotels.html>

Campgrounds: <http://www.wififreespot.com/rv.html>

City by city listing: <http://www.wififreespot.com/> though for my
own city I see only about 1/3 of the free hot spots that I am personally
aware of so probably only about 15-20% are actually on that list. Ditto
for my home town in Florida.

By Zip code: http://www.openwifispots.com/. I went to my address and it
shows 13 free hot spots within about a 1 mile radius, yet I know of at
least 10 more that they don't have listed yet. And no, I'm not in
Manhattan where there are 50 Starbucks within a 1 mile radius!--though
three of the locations that showed up are Starbucks. Among the ones that
didn't show up are a library, city hall, the local desolate mall, a city
park, and several restaurants.
Justin
2011-04-14 23:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by SMS
If indeed Wi-Fi is not widely available where you live, then your area
is the exception rather than the rule.
Go do a comprehensive study, and *then* come back and make that
assertion.
It's already been done. Well it's never "done" per-se. It's a continuing
work in progress to enumerate all the wi-fi sites.
Airports: <http://www.wififreespot.com/airport.html>
Hotels/Motels: <http://www.wififreespot.com/hotels.html>
Hotels only count if you have access to it, most hotels I have been to lately
require you login with a code printed on the envelope of your card key

So, freespot they are not
SMS
2011-04-14 23:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by SMS
Post by Steve Sobol
Post by SMS
If indeed Wi-Fi is not widely available where you live, then your area
is the exception rather than the rule.
Go do a comprehensive study, and *then* come back and make that
assertion.
It's already been done. Well it's never "done" per-se. It's a continuing
work in progress to enumerate all the wi-fi sites.
Airports:<http://www.wififreespot.com/airport.html>
Hotels/Motels:<http://www.wififreespot.com/hotels.html>
Hotels only count if you have access to it, most hotels I have been to lately
require you login with a code printed on the envelope of your card key
That's true, many restaurants and hotels make you enter a code, and even
some libraries require that you have library card. It's still free, or
at least "paid for."

Paul Miner
2011-04-14 22:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Justin
No, it's not. I've repeatedly debunked your myth with facts
Sorry, you have not provided any facts to disprove anything.
<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382281,00.asp>
"_Years after Wi-Fi connections have become ubiquitous_ on university
campuses, in coffee shops, and in public buildings, the ability to
connect to the Internet during a morning commute is still an exercise in
frustration for many Americans.
Yesterday the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in New York
City said it was moving forward with a pilot program to bring Wi-Fi to
customers in select subway stations. While promising, the initial
rollout includes only a few stations, and _it's coming years after Wi-Fi
has become commonplace._"
If indeed Wi-Fi is not widely available where you live, then your area
is the exception rather than the rule.
You falsely claim that WiFi is ubiquitous, but the article you linked
above disagrees with you.

To quote, "Years after Wi-Fi connections have become ubiquitous on
university campuses, in coffee shops, and in public buildings, the
ability to connect to the Internet during a morning commute is still
an exercise in frustration for many Americans."

When they point out that WiFi connections are widely available in
three types of places, how many other types of places are left out?
Which part of "an exercise in frustration" is confusing to you?

The bottom line is that WiFi may very well be ubiquitous where you
live or work, but it most definitely is not ubiquitous in 99.99999% of
the rest of the country where the rest of us live and work. You've
been accused before of applying your local view to the country as a
whole, and you're doing it again. Doing so doesn't make it true,
however.
--
Paul Miner
Steve Sobol
2011-04-14 22:13:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
says...
Post by Paul Miner
When they point out that WiFi connections are widely available in
three types of places, how many other types of places are left out?
Which part of "an exercise in frustration" is confusing to you?
None of it. He just conveniently ignores it.
Post by Paul Miner
The bottom line is that WiFi may very well be ubiquitous where you
live or work, but it most definitely is not ubiquitous in 99.99999% of
the rest of the country where the rest of us live and work. You've
been accused before of applying your local view to the country as a
whole, and you're doing it again. Doing so doesn't make it true,
however.
Yeah, I've said the same thing over and over, and he ignores it. It's
very dishonest.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
SMS
2011-04-14 23:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Miner
When they point out that WiFi connections are widely available in
three types of places, how many other types of places are left out?
Which part of "an exercise in frustration" is confusing to you?
Very weak.

Do you believe that since they only list three types of places that that
means they therefore are excluding all other types of places?

They didn't mention hotels either, so does that mean you think that most
hotels don't offer wi-fi? Nor do they mention restaurants or airports,
so do you think that means that many of those venues don't have it either?

In reality the article was simply pointing out what everyone already
knows. Wi-Fi is in so many places that if you don't need mobile Internet
while driving you can easily get by. The most popular iPads are the
Wi-Fi only models? Why, because there's simply no need to be paying for
3G service unless you simply must have mobile coverage.

Actually, Wi-Fi goes beyond being ubiquitous, it's often available in
rural places with no 3G service at all.
Justin
2011-04-14 23:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Paul Miner
When they point out that WiFi connections are widely available in
three types of places, how many other types of places are left out?
Which part of "an exercise in frustration" is confusing to you?
Very weak.
Do you believe that since they only list three types of places that that
means they therefore are excluding all other types of places?
No free wifi in any of my grocery stores, no free wifi in my drug stores
no wifi of any kind at my work except for the cafeteria which is a block away
and the signal doesn't transfer.
Post by SMS
They didn't mention hotels either, so does that mean you think that most
hotels don't offer wi-fi?
You can't use the wifi in a hotel unless you are a guest, more
often than not
Post by SMS
Actually, Wi-Fi goes beyond being ubiquitous, it's often available in
rural places with no 3G service at all.
u·biq·ui·tous/yo?o'bikw?t?s/
Adjective: Present, appearing, or found everywhere:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Todd Allcock
2011-04-14 15:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Todd Allcock
That's the real problem with mobile data. At three o'clock in the
morning when I'm barreling down some deserted stretch of highway, my
carrier couldn't care less if I stream Pandora or Netflix the whole way.
It's during business hours when the same behavior might interfere with
the corporate users paying top dollar that I might be a
liability. With
Post by SMS
Post by Todd Allcock
packet data, we all still get to connect, but excessive use slows
everyone's throughput.
Yet they've never been interested in following the peak/off-peak pricing
model that they use for voice.
Because tiered data is still in its infancy. With unlimited plans,
there's no need for peak/off-peak.
Post by SMS
AT&T's approach of providing more and more hotspots, while offering
tiers of data service, is likely to be copied by all the other
carriers
Post by SMS
(at least the tiered data service). When you access to wi-fi at
Airports, Bakeries, Barber Shops, Bars, Campgrounds, Car Repair Shops,
Car Dealers, Car Washes, Coffee Houses, Colleges, Copy Centers, Donut
Shops, Freeway Rest Areas, Government Buildings, Hospitals, Medical
Centers, Hotels, Laundromats, Libraries, Parks, Restaurants,
Shopping
Post by SMS
Malls, Friends Homes, etc., and use mobile data only when there's
no
Post by SMS
other source available, your mobile data needs are greatly reduced.
And connecting to those hotspots is enough of a PITA that the tiers
should be "lucrative" enough to the customer to make it worth the
effort. AT&T's tier model is insulting. $10 (40%) less for 90% less
data with the hanging sword of punitive overage charges is not a
solution to get customers to use less data. Give 50 or 100MB for
free with a qualifying voice plan and maybe you'll see people logging
into WiFi at Laundromats!
SMS
2011-04-14 16:20:22 UTC
Permalink
On 4/14/2011 8:52 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>
Post by Todd Allcock
And connecting to those hotspots is enough of a PITA that the tiers
should be "lucrative" enough to the customer to make it worth the
effort.
That might be true the first time you connect. After that the phone
remembers the pass code, if any, and it's less of a hassle.

AT&T's tier model is insulting. $10 (40%) less for 90% less data
Post by Todd Allcock
with the hanging sword of punitive overage charges is not a solution to
get customers to use less data.
Sure it is, at least for AT&T. If you believe AT&T, 65% of smart phone
owners use less that 200MB of data per month and 98% use less than 2GB
per month (of course they don't say how many of those 65% are on the
$25/2GB plan or the old $30/unlimited plan). No one on the unlimited
plan is going to switch to the 2GB plan to save $5 even if they're using
between 200MB and 2GB a month.

I don't know how much AT&T's aggressive wi-fi hot spot program has
contributed to this data usage model.

Give 50 or 100MB for free with a
Post by Todd Allcock
qualifying voice plan and maybe you'll see people logging into WiFi at
Laundromats!
I liked Sprint's old "Fair and Flexible" approach. If you went over your
allotted minutes, you automatically purchased a block of extra minutes
for a non-extortionate price.

The carriers and consumers are, of course, approaching the whole data
issue with totally different goals in mind. The carriers want to get
people on large or unlimited data plans, then have them use as little
data as possible. The consumers either want unlimited data to be truly
unlimited and high speed, or limited and priced fairly.

It's akin to the oil companies' law of supply and demand--"we have all
the supply, so we can demand whatever the $%%^ we want." If T-Mobile is
acquired, the number of suppliers falls again. Verizon may try to buy
U.S. Cellular which is doing poorly. No one seems to want Sprint.
Justin
2011-04-14 17:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<snip>
Post by Todd Allcock
And connecting to those hotspots is enough of a PITA that the tiers
should be "lucrative" enough to the customer to make it worth the
effort.
That might be true the first time you connect. After that the phone
remembers the pass code, if any, and it's less of a hassle.
Sure... except then you have the case of ATTWIFI, you can connect
at starbucks and use it right away no problems, for free. Other places
you need to sign in and then login through a web browser to your AT&T
account.

At our local Meineke you need to join the network, then load their
webpage and enter a passkey on that.

My device can remember both of these networks just fine, and if I
go to starbucks I can be using the network in seconds, or if I go to
one of the places that require web page login like somewhere near campus
then I need to load a web page, enter my details and then it will work
for a while...
Todd Allcock
2011-04-14 17:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<snip>
Post by Todd Allcock
And connecting to those hotspots is enough of a PITA that the tiers
should be "lucrative" enough to the customer to make it worth the
effort.
That might be true the first time you connect. After that the phone
remembers the pass code, if any, and it's less of a hassle.
You're assuming a WEP/WPA key. I'm mostly talking about the login/accept
TOS pages. These days, most smartphone data use is email and "app"
related. Your Facebook app or email program doesn't update until you
open your browser (usually still sitting at the last page you looked at,)
try to go somewhere, and get redirected to the login/TOS.
Post by SMS
Post by Todd Allcock
AT&T's tier model is insulting. $10 (40%) less for 90% less data
with the hanging sword of punitive overage charges is not a solution to
get customers to use less data.
Sure it is, at least for AT&T. If you believe AT&T, 65% of smart phone
owners use less that 200MB of data per month and 98% use less than 2GB
per month (of course they don't say how many of those 65% are on the
$25/2GB plan or the old $30/unlimited plan). No one on the unlimited
plan is going to switch to the 2GB plan to save $5 even if they're
using between 200MB and 2GB a month.
The bulk of those 65% are probably using Blackberries, which compress
data at RIM's servers to conserve data.

You know what the averages for iPhones and Android phones are, so that
200MB is pretty disingenuous.
Post by SMS
Give 50 or 100MB for free with a
Post by Todd Allcock
qualifying voice plan and maybe you'll see people logging into WiFi at
Laundromats!
I liked Sprint's old "Fair and Flexible" approach. If you went over
your allotted minutes, you automatically purchased a block of extra
minutes for a non-extortionate price.

That's roughly analogous to my "deli" pricing idea. Charge everyone a
fair price for usage, and let the chips fall where they may. The problem
is that AT&T's (and every other carrier's business model) is predicated
on customers buying far more than they actually use, and enforcing that
behavior with the fear of outrageous overage charges.

Maybe that's the real solution for AT&T. Let the top "1%" pigs use their
100 or 200GB a month, and charge a fortune for it. Raise the 2GB tier to
4 or 5, elimnate _all_ unlimited data plans, letting those who complain
out of their contract, (because those who complain are probably the top 1%
anyway) and offer a new 200GB tier for $500 a month or whatever.
Post by SMS
The carriers and consumers are, of course, approaching the whole data
issue with totally different goals in mind. The carriers want to get
people on large or unlimited data plans, then have them use as little
data as possible. The consumers either want unlimited data to be truly
unlimited and high speed, or limited and priced fairly.
True. But the lack of realistic tiers "proves" this problem is less of a
problem than carriers like AT&T want us to believe.
Post by SMS
It's akin to the oil companies' law of supply and demand--"we have all
the supply, so we can demand whatever the $%%^ we want." If T-Mobile is
acquired, the number of suppliers falls again. Verizon may try to buy
U.S. Cellular which is doing poorly. No one seems to want Sprint.
Sprint might have a recovery if they're the only carrier left standing
with reasonable plans. T-Mo just launched a $79 unlimited everything
plan yesterday, matching Sprint's 4G everything plan. (Sprint doesn't
included unlimited calls to landlines, and T-Mo's "unlimited" data is
speed throttled after 2GB, IIRC.)
SMS
2011-04-14 16:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Give 50 or 100MB for free with a qualifying voice plan and maybe you'll see people logging into WiFi at Laundromats!
That's a great idea for a consumer that is willing to use Wi-Fi, when
available in order to save money (and have a faster connection in most
cases), but not a good idea for the carrier's revenue model. If only
some carrier could offer 1000 or so voice minutes, a couple of thousand
text/MMS messages, and 100MB of data for something like $30 a month. If
you needed a little more data some months then they could sell it to
you. But probably this will never happen, except that it already did.

When Pageplus first started doing this they were swamped with new
customers and Verizon banned (or made Pageplus ban) smart phones on
Pageplus.

Right around the time Verizon started offering their $15/150MB data plan
Pageplus lifted the ban on smart phones (the iPhone is banned), and
thankfully did not re-institute it once Verizon realized that the 150MB
plan was a very bad idea in terms of revenue. It's not like that a
Verizon user would switch to AT&T in order to get a $15 data
plan--they'll pay whatever Verizon charges.

At a store that sells Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T, a salesperson did say
that the $15 AT&T plan was generating new smart phone sales from those
that did not need a lot of data, that would not pay $25-30 per month for
more data, but that were okay with $15 per month. That's probably why
Verizon tried something similar.
Hachiroku ハチロク
2011-04-12 20:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data" has
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!
SMS
2011-04-12 20:17:19 UTC
Permalink
On 4/12/2011 1:25 PM, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

<snip>
Post by Hachiroku ハチロク
No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!
I had a teeth cleaning this morning and the hygienist had a tiny camera
connected to the laptop in the office. She said it cost $5000. Maybe I
should have asked if it were possible to get some photos of the inside
of my mouth to post on Facebook.
Hachiroku ハチロク
2011-04-12 22:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<snip>
Post by Hachiroku ハチロク
No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!
I had a teeth cleaning this morning and the hygienist had a tiny camera
connected to the laptop in the office. She said it cost $5000. Maybe I
should have asked if it were possible to get some photos of the inside of
my mouth to post on Facebook.
Damn! I would have loved to see that! ;)
SMS
2011-04-12 22:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hachiroku ハチロク
Post by SMS
<snip>
Post by Hachiroku ハチロク
No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!
I had a teeth cleaning this morning and the hygienist had a tiny camera
connected to the laptop in the office. She said it cost $5000. Maybe I
should have asked if it were possible to get some photos of the inside of
my mouth to post on Facebook.
Damn! I would have loved to see that! ;)
I did get a CD with the x-rays of my hand where I had a fracture last
year. I could post those instead.
Hachiroku ハチロク
2011-04-13 03:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Hachiroku ハチロク
Post by SMS
<snip>
Post by Hachiroku ハチロク
No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!
I had a teeth cleaning this morning and the hygienist had a tiny camera
connected to the laptop in the office. She said it cost $5000. Maybe I
should have asked if it were possible to get some photos of the inside
of my mouth to post on Facebook.
Damn! I would have loved to see that! ;)
I did get a CD with the x-rays of my hand where I had a fracture last
year. I could post those instead.
Cool! Let it rip! The world wants to see!!! ;)
Hachiroku ハチロク
2011-04-12 22:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<snip>
Post by Hachiroku ハチロク
No more broken molars on Facebook? Say it isn't so!
I had a teeth cleaning this morning and the hygienist had a tiny camera
connected to the laptop in the office. She said it cost $5000. Maybe I
should have asked if it were possible to get some photos of the inside of
my mouth to post on Facebook.
I used a whole 18M on Page Plus last month!
Ryan P.
2011-04-12 22:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Its the networks' own fault. If they tell me I can stream video and
make video conference calls on their network, why should I be labeled a
data hog when I actually do these things?

What's the point of paying the premium data fee if the only thing they
really want me to do is check my email?
Todd Allcock
2011-04-12 22:49:43 UTC
Permalink
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
Post by Ryan P.
Post by SMS
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Its the networks' own fault. If they tell me I can stream video and
make video conference calls on their network, why should I be labeled a
data hog when I actually do these things?


Agreed. It's a little disingenuous for carriers to cry "oh, the data
hogs!" when their commercials advertise video chatting, music downloads,
streaming video, etc.
Post by Ryan P.
What's the point of paying the premium data fee if the only thing
they really want me to do is check my email?


And that, in a nutshell, is the whole "cake and eat it too" problem.
Mobile operators want all of us to _pay_ for a umpteen GB plan, then only
use a few megabytes, so they can resell the same limited bandwidth to
everyone. If cell data is as scarce as they want us to believe, there
should be some sore of "reward" for conserving it. Instead, they force
everyone who wants to buy a high-end phone to buy a data plan, and they
make low-end tiers small enough that it's difficult to stay within their
limits.

As I've said before- if you want users to conserve data, price it like a
deli. Charge _everyone_ a reasonable rate per GB, and only collect from
each customer what they've actually used. Fat chance- that'd scare
carriers even more than unlimited plans do, when the bulk of their
customers would only pay $5-10/month for data!

I still think T-Mo has the right idea- offer unlimited then throttle your
speed when you hit a certain amount per day or per month. That way,
you'll always have access to your "mission critical" data, whether that's
corporate email or Twitter, but if you stream video and audio willy-
nilly, you'll eventually get slowed to where that usage is too painful to
try
SMS
2011-04-12 23:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
And that, in a nutshell, is the whole "cake and eat it too" problem.
Mobile operators want all of us to _pay_ for a umpteen GB plan, then only
use a few megabytes, so they can resell the same limited bandwidth to
everyone. If cell data is as scarce as they want us to believe, there
should be some sore of "reward" for conserving it. Instead, they force
everyone who wants to buy a high-end phone to buy a data plan, and they
make low-end tiers small enough that it's difficult to stay within their
limits.
Precisely. They're selling something they can't really provide. But look
at landline "unlimited" service where they're also selling something
that is not possible to provide. The phone network is not designed for
that. In fact the IBOCs got in trouble when dial-up modems were popular
because people were tying up phone lines for many hours a day and the
switches weren't designed for that. They were also running out of pairs
of wires because so many people were getting a second phone line for
data. aDSL really saved them in both regards.
Post by Todd Allcock
As I've said before- if you want users to conserve data, price it like a
deli. Charge _everyone_ a reasonable rate per GB, and only collect from
each customer what they've actually used. Fat chance- that'd scare
carriers even more than unlimited plans do, when the bulk of their
customers would only pay $5-10/month for data!
That's the problem, so much of data use is discretionary, only used
because a) it's "unlimited," and b) it's a hassle to switch to Wi-Fi
when it's available. Price it per GB and suddenly that streaming Elmo
video or uploading a couple of hundred 4 megapixel jpegs can wait an
hour or two. But it also means that people may suddenly realize that
they can use a magnitudes less 3G/4G data without negatively impacting
their lives, and cause them to switch to lower cost plans, which is
something the carriers desperately want to avoid.
Post by Todd Allcock
I still think T-Mo has the right idea- offer unlimited then throttle your
speed when you hit a certain amount per day or per month. That way,
you'll always have access to your "mission critical" data, whether that's
corporate email or Twitter, but if you stream video and audio willy-
nilly, you'll eventually get slowed to where that usage is too painful to
try to use.
Yes, that's fair enough, since they make that clear in advance. That
plan is sure to go away if the acquisition goes through. This system
helps discourage abuse while still being unlimited.
Todd Allcock
2011-04-13 03:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Todd Allcock
As I've said before- if you want users to conserve data, price it like a
deli. Charge _everyone_ a reasonable rate per GB, and only
collect from
Post by SMS
Post by Todd Allcock
each customer what they've actually used. Fat chance- that'd scare
carriers even more than unlimited plans do, when the bulk of their
customers would only pay $5-10/month for data!
That's the problem, so much of data use is discretionary, only used
because a) it's "unlimited," and b) it's a hassle to switch to
Wi-Fi
Post by SMS
when it's available. Price it per GB and suddenly that streaming Elmo
video or uploading a couple of hundred 4 megapixel jpegs can wait an
hour or two. But it also means that people may suddenly realize that
they can use a magnitudes less 3G/4G data without negatively
impacting
Post by SMS
their lives, and cause them to switch to lower cost plans, which is
something the carriers desperately want to avoid.
Which, frankly, is why I feel no obligation to unilaterally curtail
my data use. I never come anywhere near T-Mo's soft cap (I don't
even come close to a GB) but since I don't get a discount or rebate
for saving bandwidth, WIIFM? If bandwidth is as scarce as they say,
why aren't they rationing it?

The answer, of course, just as your Cisco study mentions, is the top
1% of users use about a quarter of all mobile bandwidth. Streaming a
little Pandora on the way home from work is a drop in the bucket next
to that. A GB of data is only about 30MB a day. If my carrier can't
supply that, maybe they should think about upgrading the network.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 04:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by Todd Allcock
And that, in a nutshell, is the whole "cake and eat it too" problem.
Mobile operators want all of us to _pay_ for a umpteen GB plan, then only
use a few megabytes, so they can resell the same limited bandwidth to
everyone.
Precisely. They're selling something they can't really provide. But look
at landline "unlimited" service where they're also selling something
that is not possible to provide.
Really, Steven, what part of "That's not the customer's fault" don't you
understand?

Calling someone a hog for using the amount of data they're allowed to
use is asinine and childish.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
Paul Miner
2011-04-13 00:28:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:49:43 -0600, Todd Allcock
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Ryan P.
What's the point of paying the premium data fee if the only thing
they really want me to do is check my email?
And that, in a nutshell, is the whole "cake and eat it too" problem.
Mobile operators want all of us to _pay_ for a umpteen GB plan, then only
use a few megabytes, so they can resell the same limited bandwidth to
everyone.
Hey, didn't that use to be "Sellphone" Larry's point of view? My, what
a ration of crap he would get every time he said it, but it was true
then and it's true now.
--
Paul Miner
Justin
2011-04-12 23:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan P.
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
I liked this part, as it exemplifies the problem that "unlimited data"
"As traffic increases on mobile networks—it nearly tripled this year,
and Cisco expects it to grow twenty-sixfold by 2015—consumers will be
forced to make smarter choices about how they use mobile data. Perhaps
parents will be forced to download the toddler-pacifying Elmo videos at
home rather than on-demand in the car. That's not a tragedy, it's what
markets do. So the next time you hear a wireless executive complaining
about data hogs, ask yourself: What's my reward for being a data piglet?"
Its the networks' own fault. If they tell me I can stream video and
make video conference calls on their network, why should I be labeled a
data hog when I actually do these things?
Exactly!
Post by Ryan P.
What's the point of paying the premium data fee if the only thing they
really want me to do is check my email?
They don't even want you to do that. Just send your payment, leave your
devices off.
Steve Sobol
2011-04-13 04:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan P.
Its the networks' own fault. If they tell me I can stream video and
make video conference calls on their network, why should I be labeled a
data hog when I actually do these things?
EXACTLY. If you're going to offer X, make sure your network can support
X.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net
Larry Mobile
2011-04-13 00:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
<http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_08/b4216031355061.htm>
The ideal cellular/data customer is one who logs on once each day, buys
something from the sellphone store's webpage, checks his email then gets
the hell off until tomorrow.....so we can sell the SAME bandwidth to
100,000,000 other dumbasses just like him.

THAT business plan hasn't changed since we had tube-type Motorola MTS
radios running off dynamotors in the trunk....

Sell me bandwidth, then call me names related to swine and threaten to
cut me off for using what I'm paying for.

Bastards.....every one.
Loading...